Yeah, I got the suggestion from an evolutionist only about a week back that he thought contained "evidence of evolution". I watched about ten minutes of tedious graphics and insults towards creationists with this sneery, snotty, voice just reeking of contempt, before I got tired and decided not to waste my time on it anymore. Of course I was accused of being "ignorant" because I just don't have the time to wade though the kind of stuff I have wasted time listening to before.

I'm not saying that Ken Miller is like that, but I think most of us have watched his videos and know about his arguments.

There's nothing wrong with watching videos if time permits. But some of us are stressed out with jobs and responsibilites. And if anything in this debate provides any scientific evidence worth its weight, then I think it will eventually surface, don't you? But funnily enough, the "real evidence" seems to be burried somewhere in a video... somewhere.

What actually happened here on planet earth is I gave two short clips (less than 3:30 each) and he refused to watch them. Then I stopped responding to his comments because he continually ignores my responses. Then he said "I have already watched Ken Miller before.... Ergo not wanting to watch again...." and launches into an attack against some other ken miller video, then claims "yet for some reason he has ignored this response and has merely attributed it to 'I don't like Miller'.... If he had actually READ my responses he'd see that I addressed his precious video, the very thing he claims I avoid doing...."

He is a lying troll. I stopped responding to him because he's a lying troll and now he's calling me a lying troll on the basis that I stopped responding to him.

What actually happened here on planet earth is I gave two short clips (less than 3:30 each) and he refused to watch them. Then I stopped responding to his comments because he continually ignores my responses. Then he said "I have already watched Ken Miller before.... Ergo not wanting to watch again...." and launches into an attack against some other ken miller video, then claims "yet for some reason he has ignored this response and has merely attributed it to 'I don't like Miller'.... If he had actually READ my responses he'd see that I addressed his precious video, the very thing he claims I avoid doing...."

He is a lying troll. I stopped responding to him because he's a lying troll and now he's calling me a lying troll on the basis that I stopped responding to him.

Again, I have been waiting for YOU to post about the video so that way YOU are accountable, I'm not going to attempt to debunk an entire video when you haven't explained what about the video supports your view. As has been said before it is intellectually dishonest to link a video and not even explain what about the video supports your view, its the same as me telling you to go read Behe's book and that debunks everything.

Until you specifiy what you want to draw out from the video then how in the world can you expect me to make a reply? You're being unreasonable!

Perhaps make a fresh thread explaining what about the videos support your claims THEN I shall respond.

This says nothing about if I watched the video or not so you are simply seeing something that is not there and creating a mountain out of a molehill. Which either constitutes your own confusion or intellectual dishonesty.

Additionally my asking you to comment about the videos rather than just post videos fits within here, since I am discussing this with you not him and therefore your input is required.

Again, I have been waiting for YOU to post about the video so that way YOU are accountable, I'm not going to attempt to debunk an entire video when you haven't explained what about the video supports your view. As has been said before it is intellectually dishonest to link a video and not even explain what about the video supports your view, its the same as me telling you to go read Behe's book and that debunks everything.

Until you specifiy what you want to draw out from the video then how in the world can you expect me to make a reply? You're being unreasonable!

Perhaps make a fresh thread explaining what about the videos support your claims THEN I shall respond.

This says nothing about if I watched the video or not so you are simply seeing something that is not there and creating a mountain out of a molehill. Which either constitutes your own confusion or intellectual dishonesty.

Additionally my asking you to comment about the videos rather than just post videos fits within here, since I am discussing this with you not him and therefore your input is required.

This is a BS rationalization that you came up with only after refusing to look at the evidence multiple times. I already was very specific about what was in the video and was responding to a very specific demand for evidence from you.

You said "I'll happily debunk the video once he has written something about the video, since as I said straight up, a forum is for sharing ideas not videos... Posting videos with no context written isn't intellectually honest. He is simply a hypocrite who is in denial."

The original post:

You said: "Then you can honour me with the empirical evidence, keep in mind that empirical implies that the evidence be, observable, repeatable, measurable and falsifiable."

To which I replied:

"You can read my response in his other thread where I give multiple examples of evolutionary predictions being tested against discoveries in the fossil record and here's a biologist (he's christian too by the way) talking about some evolutionary predictions in genetics and the fossil record:"

That is not posting a link without giving a description or context or what I am claiming is in the video.

You said: "Then you can honour me with the empirical evidence, keep in mind that empirical implies that the evidence be, observable, repeatable, measurable and falsifiable."

To which I replied:

"You can read my response in his other thread where I give multiple examples of evolutionary predictions being tested against discoveries in the fossil record and here's a biologist (he's christian too by the way) talking about some evolutionary predictions in genetics and the fossil record:"

That is not posting a link without giving a description or context or what I am claiming is in the video.

YOU ARE A LIAR.

"You can read my response in his other thread where I give multiple examples of evolutionary predictions being tested against discoveries in the fossil record and here's a biologist (he's christian too by the way) talking about some evolutionary predictions in genetics and the fossil record:"

This gives no explanation whatsoever of the arguments being made on the video.. I have asked YOU to state the argument since that way you cannot back away from it. You continue to refuse to do so... Why? Why keep refusing why not explain it as I have asked and merely use the video as supporting evidence (rather than the entire argument), is it because you don't know? Is it because you are scared of putting your name to the claim?

This is a waste of time. You demanded evidence, I gave it. You refused to look at it unless I gave a description, I pointed out that I already did. Now you won't look at my evidence because my description is not to your liking.

And if someone put a gun to your head and made you look at it you'd just ignore it the same way you are now, so I give up.

Ignore the evidence to your heart's content. But stop dogging me in every single thread telling people how I'm incapable of giving you evidence you refuse to look at.

This is a waste of time. You demanded evidence, I gave it. You refused to look at it unless I gave a description, I pointed out that I already did. Now you won't look at my evidence because my description is not to your liking.

And if someone put a gun to your head and made you look at it you'd just ignore it the same way you are now, so I give up.

Ignore the evidence to your heart's content. But stop dogging me in every single thread telling people how I'm incapable of giving you evidence you refuse to look at.

All you need to do is state why the videos are evidence, all I want you to do is to hold yourself accountable for your claims. I don't want to go to the trouble of debunking the videos (which I have already done in the past so I know I can do it), to which you can back out and claim that you never made that statement.

In effect I am asking you to be intellectually honest, I want you to put your money where your mouth is. Make the claims yourself, that way you are accountable to them. Rather than whinge and complain its a whole lot easier to just do what I have asked, dodging this reasonable request only makes you look like you have something to hide. I have already stated that I will respond AFTER you have stated your claim, rather than hide behind a video.

Therefore I am holding myself to the same standards since my statements are there for all the world to see, whereas you on the otherhand, wish to hide behind a video and not hold yourself accountable for said claim.

I watched the videos and heard the guy talk about chromosomes. I don't see how 2 less chromosomes and the similarity prove evolution? Just because they are similar? That if ID was the case, God wouldn't want to trick us?

He also said they found these transitional fossils but he didn't show them. I would have liked to seen the different animals in their various stages and how they tested the ear. Again, does this prove evolution? What have they tested to prove their hypothesis on the ear?

I watched the videos and heard the guy talk about chromosomes. I don't see how 2 less chromosomes and the similarity prove evolution? Just because they are similar? That if ID was the case, God wouldn't want to trick us?

He also said they found these transitional fossils but he didn't show them. I would have liked to seen the different animals in their various stages and how they tested the ear. Again, does this prove evolution? What have they tested to prove their hypothesis on the ear?

Had Agnophilo grounded himself in his own statement, rather than hide behind a video. I would have said similar...

In fact I'll respond to the videos, despite Agnophilo not making his own claim about them...

1- Chromosomes... Its an observation... Even if it looks like it evolved you cannot tell for sure until evolution has been experimentally verified as the cause.. However this is impossible to do since its an alledged historical event, ergo the video (and Agno for posting it) is merely assuming "evolution did it" without sufficient verification to support this hypothesis.

2- As Usafijay succintly put it, he claims that there are transitional forms but never states any... The fact of the matter is that every single one claimed to be a "transitional form" is an independant species... There have been no fossil links linking these species together over time... Essentially all the transitions are imagined.

The belief of evolution via fossils fails on two accounts.. There needs to be a progression of fossils displaying minute changes over time which can be utilised to verify that one became another... ie- for bats... mammal, mammal with longer fingers, mammal with even longer fingers, mammal with still longer fingers..etc etc etc. Merely assuming the jumps isn't evidence, rather its displaying ones own bias.

Secondly even IF this progression was found (which it hasn't) then there needs to be experimentation to verify the hypothesis that evolution was the cause. Merely assuming "evolution did it" doesn't support the claim scientifically, in fact its yet another claim from bias.

Now I predict one of two things.. Either Agno will ardently argue or will back away from the videos stating that his / her claim about them was never made.. Lets see what happens shall we

I watched the videos and heard the guy talk about chromosomes. I don't see how 2 less chromosomes and the similarity prove evolution? Just because they are similar? That if ID was the case, God wouldn't want to trick us?

He also said they found these transitional fossils but he didn't show them. I would have liked to seen the different animals in their various stages and how they tested the ear. Again, does this prove evolution? What have they tested to prove their hypothesis on the ear?

It was plainly spelled out. You're either unwilling or unable to comprehend it. There is nothing more I can do to help you.

So I’ve read on this forum that there is plenty of evidence for evolution, to Google it, to Wiki it, etc. I’ve honestly seen a lot of stuff but nothing that says ‘evidence’. I’ve read theories and thoughts but have not found irrefutable evidence. I’ve composed a few questions that I found scattered through this forum and one online (source provided) so here goes.

Yay, questions !

In regards to the big bang, where did the rock, star, asteroid or whatever it was come from?

According to theories of stellar nucleosynthesis and all that, stars formed (and still form) when clouds of gas collapse on themselves (through simple gravitational attraction, Newtonian physics) and are massive enough that at some point the pressure at the core of the cloud is high enough to ignite hydrogen fusion. Fusion of hydrogen into helium and then helium into heavier elements results in all the elements of the periodic table (that's basic atomic physics).Rocks and asteroids form when clouds containing those heavier elements collapse on themselves; the heavier elements stick to each other more when they collide because they're slower and more massive and as the cloud collapses more and more they form bigger and bigger rocky objects.That's where an idea of how massive the numbers are becomes interesting. 99% of all the matter in the Solar System is in the Sun; our huge planets actually only compose the tiniest fraction of all the matter in the Solar System, most of which is hydrogen gas. But it's enough matter for our purposes

In regards to the big bang, what caused the explosion?

The Big Bang isn't an explosion (the name is cute but not the best descriptor). What the Big Bang theory states is that our Universe is expanding, and that it used to be very small. We're not just talking about matter spreading out into space and having been concentrated in a single point a long time ago; we're talking about space itself expanding, as in "the distance between any two points of the Universe is increasing".As for what caused the beginning of the expansion, nobody knows that yet. The Big Bang theory says nothing about time zero; there is a generally-accepted account of things that happened at time 10^-11 seconds, and there are various hypotheses on what might have happened at times as early as 10^-32 seconds, but the theory has nothing to say about time zero. Finding out about that would probably involve a brand-new theory.

When in history has an explosion caused order?

It wasn't an explosion, and in fact expansions and the associated cooling of the system usually result in more order than hot, dense systems. Think of hot steam slowly cooling and that water vapor gradually condensing into water droplets, and then ice crystals : clearly an increase in order.

When has abiogenesis been observed?

It hasn't been. There is no theory of abiogenesis at the moment, just a whole lot of hypotheses and some very active research. Come back in ten to twenty years; given the progress that's been made in the last few decades we might actually get somewhere by then.

Where is the empirical irrefutable evidence for evolution?

On the TalkOrigins.org website.I'm serious, there are multiple independent lines of evidence in favor of the theory of evolution, it's foolish to try and explain them all in a single post, but if you actually want to know there are a number of books you can read and websites you can browse. TalkOrigins.org isn't the most up-to-date one but it's thorough and full of links to further information. Wikipedia is also good for that.

What is an example of something that has been proven by the scientific method in evolution?

Various processes involving speciation have been shown experimentally. The processes involved in genetic change and adaptation are also quite amenable to experiment. The fields of paleontology and phylogenetics are less amenable to controlled experimentation per se but scientists make predictions of what will be observed in the future and confirm or infirm those predictions in later observations, which is also part of the scientific method.

Science involves experimenting, to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if is the same about as this operational science?

Plenty of sciences don't involve direct experimentation on their subject of study, they can still use observational evidence and predictions, or be particularly creative in coming up with indirect experiments. Astronomy is a good example, do you think Newton was justified in believing that the same force that affected apples falling also caused planets to go around the Sun ? It's not like he could experiment on the planets.

Now, if I’m correct, I’m thinking I won’t receive any answers besides things along the line of “Evolution doesn’t explain that, science is working on it, etc”.

If you're asking what the scientific answer is to a certain question and science doesn't have the answer then "science doesn't have the answer" is the correct answer, I'm confused that you would expect anything else. Do you think science has the answer to everything ?

So, in short, the atheists/evolutionists say, In the beginning something came from something.

Hard to say, actually.

Whatever the beginning is, we don’t know.

Correct !

Whatever that something was, we don’t know.

Correct !

We also don’t know how something came from nothing.

Wait, I thought you said we think something came from something ? It's the same either way since that was another thing science doesn't currently know, but you want to keep straight what science actually does and does not know.

However this something, somehow, did something (maybe exploded)

Nope, not exploded. I've tried to explain what the Big Bang theory actually says further up, if you have more questions I'll try to answer those too. You seem to think there was something before the Universe, that became the Universe. That is not what the Big Bang theory is about. The Big Bang theory always and only talks about the Universe, it's just that it used to be much smaller and hotter and denser. Whether or not there was something before is definitely outside of the scope of that theory.

but we don’t know how or why.

Yep, though there are quite a few hypotheses on those questions, each more interesting than the next, if you enjoy physics.

After this something possibly exploded

Still no.

it went on to form planets, stars, and everything in the universe over millions and billions of years,

Not really. There wasn't any "it" forming planets, stars and everything in the Universe, those are just the structures the mass/energy of the Universed condensed into as it cooled with the expansion. A lot like crystals will spontaneously form when you cool a super-saturated solution, or how water droplets condense when air cools.

but again, we don’t know how.

We know that pretty well actually. We understand a lot about the formation of stars and star systems, even nucleosynthesis (the formation of the first fundamental particles and forces) is pretty well understood. That's some pretty deep particle physics but I'd be glad to look it up further if you're interested.

The fine tuning of the universe came to be, because, well it had to, so life could exist.

That's not what the anthropic principle says. And the fine-tuning of the Universe is fairly debated in the first place.

We don’t know how ‘it’ knew what conditions were required for life to exist, but it did.

There is no "it" involved in the Big Bang besides the Universe itself, and there is no scientific theory that states something "knew" what conditions were required for life to exist.

Then, somehow, life started.

We can do a lot better than "somehow". There is no overall theory of abiogenesis but there are more and more puzzle pieces on the map and getting closer to each other. I really like the hydrothermal vent, CoA-pathway metabolism-first hypotheses myself.

Something, somehow, caused some kind of reaction to cause life to start evolving.

It's not any "some kind of reaction" - it's self-replicating systems. Life "started evolving" at the same moment life became life (or depending on how we define the word, before life was life). Systems that replicate imperfectly cannot help but evolve and life is pretty much defined by self-replication.

Somehow, someway, everything learned to function and come together piece by piece, and 15 billion years later, we have plants, animals, humans, etc.

Again, you're definitely in "known to science" territory for a lot of that, you just disagree with what science says.

Evolution has come up with theories, thoughts, opinions, etc. that are taught in our schools, universities, etc. Not just taught mind you, but taught as fact, as Intelligent Design is never even brought up in biology or in public schools. All sorts of ‘statistics’ (and I use that word loosely) are out there to support evolution, but where is the evidence in evolution that cannot be refuted and that has been scientifically proven as empirical fact? Where are the answers to the above questions?

In science textbooks. And science books for the general public. And science websites. For those questions where science actually has an answer at least.

And the reason for that is perhaps because we all know that stuffed teddy bears are physical objects that are not casual agents?Or do you hold some sort of circular belief that the universe is created by something created by the universe?

But how do you know that God is not an existing casual agent?Have you reflected on the metaphysical grounds on which your belief rests?

And the reason for that is perhaps because we all know that stuffed teddy bears are physical objects that are not casual agents?

I was more thinking along the lines of how they're made of elements of the Universe, are the result of processes that are very specific to an infinitesimal subset of the Universe, and are known not to have existed indefinitely in the past. To have a teddy bear cause the beginning of the Universe would require either some kind of time travel, or some explanation for why something like the cause of the Universe would arise in a tiny subset of the Universe; it would suggest stuffed teddy bears have some fundamental cosmic reason for existing that we see no evidence of. That said, teddy bears have at least the merit that we know they exist.

Or do you hold some sort of circular belief that the universe is created by something created by the universe?

No, that's why I'm fairly certain it wasn't a stuffed teddy bear.

But how do you know that God is not an existing casual agent?

The relevant issue is that I don't know that he is. Moreover, most versions of God take him to be some kind of intelligence, and intelligence is another complex, specific feature that's characteristic of a very small subset of the Universe and evidence (that you reject but I don't) shows it hasn't existed indefinitely in the past, so if we posit an intelligence creating the Universe we're either having the Universe created by something created by the Universe, or we still need to address the question of the origin of intelligence, and why that intelligence was reproduced in such a tiny and specific subset of the Universe.

Have you reflected on the metaphysical grounds on which your belief rests?